Case 1600859/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T McGauley v Dwr Cymru Cefyngedig Heard By Video at: Swansea Civil Justice Centre — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600859/2022
- Decision date
- 26 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T McGauley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss T McGauley brought a claim against Dwr Cymru Cefyngedig alleging unpaid wages for the period April 2019 to March 2020. The tribunal recorded that she was paid monthly on the 20th, that the alleged deductions were made each month from at least 20 May 2019 to 20 April 2020, and that the last alleged deduction appeared in the wage paid on 20 April 2020. The claim was presented to the Employment Tribunal on 24 July 2022 after ACAS early conciliation.
The tribunal held that section 23(4A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was determinative. On its findings, anything arising before 24 July 2020 fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction, so all of the alleged deductions in this case were time-barred by that two-year limit. The tribunal therefore said it had no power to decide the claim and that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal also considered the claim under section 23(4) in the alternative. It found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claim within the three-month time limit because she knew the deductions were occurring, had been expecting the last deduction by April 2020, and was still in work until December 2020. Although she later pursued a grievance, received union assistance, and said she was dealing with mental health difficulties and had been told about ACAS by her counsellor, the tribunal found those matters did not prevent an ET claim being started in time.
On the further reasonable period issue, the tribunal found the July 2022 presentation was not within a reasonable further period after the expiry of the three-month limit. It noted that the claimant remained at work until December 2020, engaged in a grievance from February to September 2021, and returned to work in March 2022, yet still did not present the claim until July 2022. The claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that section 23(4A) ERA 1996 prevented it from considering any alleged deduction where the wage payment date was before 24 July 2020. In the alternative, it found the claim was not presented within the three-month limit, it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and it was not brought within a further reasonable period. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 23(4A) ERA 1996
- section 23(4) ERA 1996
- section 207B ERA 1996
- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.